[aur-general] Packaging LLVM

[Ranguvar]

It appears that Clang is available as an actual release this time around, so
no need for SVN :)  See this: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.6

As for the splitting of the packages, it will be either difficult or
impossible to separate LLVM and Clang, is the problem.  Plus, I anticipate
Clang being _far_ smaller than the GCC frontend -- it shouldn't be much
trouble to include it in the LLVM package.
The problem is that Clang must be built using the source from LLVM, and
seems to need to be compiled with LLVM.  That would suggest that to offer
Clang separately from LLVM, the two would have to be manually ripped apart
-- I can build LLVM, and I can build LLVM+Clang, but not just Clang.
That may be subject to change, of course, I may have missed something.

So, the route I like would be to put LLVM+Clang in the llvm package, and
offer the GCC frontend as a separate optdep.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias at justdreams.de>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm using LLVM myself, especially with clang and the static analyzer. I
> would like to see LLVM and clang separated, however the clang version is
> only available via svn and that depends on LLVM-svn very much.
>
> So I think it's better to build a general LLVM package with the gcc-
> frontend for stable development and a conflicting/providing llvm-clang
> package from svn. All that must be tested, if it works with
> otherllvm-realated packages (the llvm based D-compiler comes to mind)
>
> -T
>
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Ranguvar wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I see that the package 'llvm' is in [community], is orphaned, and is
> > out-of-date.  I've spent considerable time working on packaging LLVM and
> its
> > add-ons, the Clang C-family compiler front-end and the GCC frontend.
> > Therefore, I'd like to help package LLVM.
> > I already wrote a PKGBUILD for v2.6 of LLVM (the package we have is
> v2.5),
> > and it also has a lot of fixes and niceties.
> >
> > I'd like to discuss how best to proceed with LLVM -- whether Clang should
> be
> > included in the llvm package or as an alternate package of LLVM and
> Clang,
> > 'llvm-clang', stuff like that.
> >
> > In fact, what may work best is if llvm could be dropped into the AUR,
> where
> > I will then adopt it and update it (and potentially add 'llvm-clang' and
> > such as is decided), and then if a TU wants it in [community] (which
> would
> > make sense), it can be adopted by a TU.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >         Devin Cofer, aka Ranguvar
>